The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

Now that the Ram Janma Bhoomi case verdict has been delivered by the Supreme Court of India, the previous thread will be locked shortly. This new thread is meant for discussions relating to the aftermath of the verdict.

Below is the full text of the Supreme Court judgement from their website:

Items of primary interest (though not limited to topics below) are:1. constituting the Trust that will determine the land to be handed over to the Sunni Waqf board,2. functioning of the trust and the process of determining the land location (and its subsequent use)3. consequences of the predecent set by this verdict for other prominent temples 4. potential new developments at the location of Ram Janma Bhoomi itself- any construction-related excavation is very likely to produce additional archeological evidence about the structures built pre-1500s.5. reactions of people- citizens, netizens, twitterati- especially public figuresetc.

The items that came in handy were 1. Records of ownership of the land2. Records of worship conducted there. 3. Continuity of worship4. Archaeological evidence. 5. Certainty of popular action to demand what was obviously right and just. 6. Willingness to accommodate legitimate faith and worship of all.

I think ppl who have access to 1-4 should please make efforts to find, publish and preserve them. I was amazed at the intricate and often asinine arguments in the highest court of India (may be at the reporting on the same). It should not get to that. Destruction of legitimate, original places of worship is to be condemned. Saying that I built a shrine to old Chengiz on the site where I destroyed your shrine, does not make that a legitimate site for worship: I need to be sent somewhere else. It's not a case of rewriting history: it is a case of sensible, modern ideas of respect for the rights of all to worship - and the sound rejection of invaders, rapists, enslavers and destroyers of civilization from their presumptuous pedestals.

When Dr KK Muhammed was told he was going to be suspended for making public that he had discovered temple remnants inside Babri, he replied, in Sanskrit: Lokasamgramevapi Sampasyan Kartumarhasi. Swadharme nidhanam shreya.

vimal wrote:Babri Masjid was called as Masjid-e-Janamsthan till early 20th century. After that the Marxists and JIhadis renamed it to Babri masjid hide it's origin.

What does the "1858 FIR" posted above actually say? (can't read..) The caption beside the FIR says "Babri Masjid". Is the document done by Al Fotoshopi bin JNU FIRs Pvt Ltd? Or only the caption is "modern"?

It is well established that earlier visitors from around the world all referred to the place as ArrJayBee. The destruction of the temple and building a triumphalist bubble, with absolutely no faith reasons, over the place using stones stolen from the ruins of the temple, are all well-established procedure of the Conquering Herrows of One Community. Ask ppl from Syrian Coptic Church; ask Jewish people. Ask ppl in Spain. Iran. Iraq.

In most faiths it would be sacrilege to use stones from a shrine of another faith anywhere in the construction of one's own shrine. In the history of one faith it is exactly the opposite, the urge to be InUrFace/ OnUrChest is apparently built-in. This is at the root of most of India's long-burning irritants.

The 2.7 acre/ 5 acre deal is a step in the right direction, to separate the legitimate need for a place to worship in one's faith, from the utterly malicious history of insisting that one destroy others' rights and history. The invaders of South America were equally bad, I suppose. Yindoos have so far survived these kindnesses.

vimal wrote:Babri Masjid was called as Masjid-e-Janamsthan till early 20th century. After that the Marxists and JIhadis renamed it to Babri masjid hide it's origin.

Good point - Till around 1940... Don't think this fact is that widely known..

Will be interesting to see the name (I did not pay much attention) in earlier documents and

Interestingly late 1800'w petition by Syed Mohammad Asghar the Mutawalli (guardian) of the "Masjid Baburi-e- Janmasthan" complaining and asking to restrain the Hindus that raised a " chabutara on the spot regarded as the birthplace of Rama." .. The place (hill) is mentioned as "Ramkot" ..

SriKumar wrote:4. potential new developments at the location of Ram Janma Bhoomi itself- any construction-related excavation is very likely to produce additional archeological evidence about the structures built pre-1500s.

My suggestion is to build a grand museum within the temple complex to house not only the artefacts excavated from this site but from around Bharat. We should also forcefully request every museum in the world to return every artifact that originated in Bharat to be permanently displayed in this museum.

SC put in the gratuitous slam against the 1992 event. That was presumably to discourage the effective method to enable archaeological research under such structures. Think about it: If it weren't for the improved parking there, it would have been impossible for ASI to get the proof. There would have been no way for Allahabad HC to do what they did/were complelled to do.

See Al Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem. My Israeli acquaintances were convinced that it is not just ***near*** the Second Temple of Solomon, it was built over the ruins of one of the temples. There was no particular reason for Pro**** Mo*** to appear or have a conniption fit in that particular spot, except to humiliate Jewish people's beliefs.

It was once thought that Emperor Justinian's "Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos", or the New Church of the God-Bearer, dedicated to the God-bearing Virgin Mary, consecrated in 543 and commonly known as the Nea Church, was situated where al-Aqsa Mosque was later constructed. However, remains identified as those of the Nea Church were uncovered in the south part of the Jewish Quarter in 1973.[13][14]

Analysis of the wooden beams and panels removed from the mosque during renovations in the 1930s shows they are made from Cedar of Lebanon and cypress. Radiocarbon dating indicates a large range of ages, some as old as 9th-century BCE, showing that some of the wood had previously been used in older buildings.[15]

In 2012, it was reported that Robert Hamilton, an archaeologist who worked on the Temple Mount after the 1927 Jericho earthquake, had discovered remains under al-Aqsa mosque that he did not publish in his book on the excavations. These included a mosaic like those used in Byzantine churches, and a Jewish mikveh from the Second Temple period.[16][17]

I thought the Israelis did their version of BM'92 (they used tanks, not k-s with hammers), but I can't remember which one that was.

Last edited by UlanBatori on 11 Nov 2019 08:31, edited 2 times in total.

OT I know but relevant to how such things bother other people: From Wikipedia:

On July 20, 1951, King Abdullah I was shot three times by a Palestinian gunman as he entered the mosque, killing him. His grandson Prince Hussein, was at his side and was also hit, though a medal he was wearing on his chest deflected the bullet.The mosque seen from the Western Wall plaza, 2005

On 21 August 1969, a fire was started by a visitor from Australia named Denis Michael Rohan. Rohan was a member of an evangelical Christian sect known as the Worldwide Church of God.[32] He hoped that by burning down al-Aqsa Mosque he would hasten the Second Coming of Jesus, making way for the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. Rohan was subsequently hospitalized in a mental institution.[33] In response to the incident, a summit of Islamic countries was held in Rabat that same year, hosted by Faisal of Saudi Arabia, the then king of Saudi Arabia. The al-Aqsa fire is regarded as one of the catalysts for the formation of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC, now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) in 1972.[34]

In the 1980s, Ben Shoshan and Yehuda Etzion, both members of the Gush Emunim Underground, plotted to blow up the al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Etzion believed that blowing up the two mosques would cause a spiritual awakening in Israel, and would solve all the problems of the Jewish people. They also hoped the Third Temple of Jerusalem would be built on the location of the mosque.[35][36] On 15 January 1988, during the First Intifada, Israeli troops fired rubber bullets and tear gas at protesters outside the mosque, wounding 40 worshipers.[37][38] On 8 October 1990, 22 Palestinians were killed and over 100 others injured by Israeli Border Police during protests that were triggered by the announcement of the Temple Mount Faithful, a group of religious Jews, that they were going to lay the cornerstone of the Third Temple.[39][40]

On 28 September 2000, then-opposition leader of Israel Ariel Sharon and members of the Likud Party, along with 1,000 armed guards, visited the al-Aqsa compound; a large group of Palestinians went to protest the visit. After Sharon and the Likud Party members left, a demonstration erupted and Palestinians on the grounds of the Haram al-Sharif began throwing stones and other projectiles at Israeli riot police. Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets at the crowd, injuring 24 people. The visit sparked a five-year uprising by the Palestinians, commonly referred to as the al-Aqsa Intifada, though some commentators, citing subsequent speeches by PA officials, particularly Imad Falouji and Arafat himself, claim that the Intifada had been planned months in advance, as early as July upon Yasser Arafat's return from Camp David talks.[41][42][43] On 29 September, the Israeli government deployed 2,000 riot police to the mosque. When a group of Palestinians left the mosque after Friday prayers (Jumu'ah,) they hurled stones at the police. The police then stormed the mosque compound, firing both live ammunition and rubber bullets at the group of Palestinians, killing four and wounding about 200.[44]

On 5 November 2014, Israeli police entered Al-Aqsa for the first time since capturing Jerusalem in 1967, said Sheikh Azzam Al-Khatib, director of the Islamic Waqf. Previous media reports of 'storming Al-Aqsa' referred to the Haram al-Sharif compound rather than the Al-Aqsa mosque itself.[45]

The Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock isn't built near the ruins of the Jewish Second Temple - it's built upon it. The Western Wall (previously known as the Wailing Wall) is the wall of the Temple Mount structure upon which the temple existed, and where the Al Aqsa Mosque was built. The reason it used to be called the wailing wall is that orthodox Jews still go cry and pray at it lamenting its destruction and inability to replace it, but they don't like the pejorative sense of the term wailing, so it got renamed as western wall.

The Israelis would gladly be rid of the Al Aqsa Mosque so that their Third Temple can be built where the second one stood - except the site has been usurped by a mosque now.

This article came out a month before the judgement, may have been posted here before. But still posting here for few questions...........

The Supreme court is holding day-to-day hearings on the Ram Janmbhumi-Babri Masjid case and is likely to give a verdict by November 17. KK Muhammed, former regional director, North, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was part of the team of archaeologists which had carried out the first excavation at the site in 1976-77. He maintains that there is enough archaeological proof of a grand temple below the Babri Mosque. He spoke to TOI on why he thinks Muslims should voluntarily hand over the land at Ayodhya.Q: What do you have to say about the Ayodhya case being heard in the Supreme Court?

A: There are three important issues. First is archaeological evidence, second is literary evidence and the third is the social issues.

Q: What is the archaeological evidence to prove whether there was a pre-existing temple or not?

A: Archaeologically there is enough evidence to say that below the controversial Babri mosque, there were temple remains. In fact, there was a grand temple structure.

Two excavations were carried out at the site.

The first excavation was carried out in the year 1976-77 under eminent archaeologist BB Lal, who was the director general of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) from 1968 to 1972.

I was a member of the excavation team and the only Muslim who had participated in the excavation.

The excavation took place at a time when Saiyid Nurul Hassan, himself a historian, was the then Union minister of state (with independent charge) of education, social welfare and culture between 1971 and 1977.

Excavation has two important components. As per the procedures, we first conducted surface exploration to find out the remains on the surface. The controversial mosque was under the custody of the police and no common visitors were allowed inside. But as were part of the excavation team, we were allowed inside it.

Moreover, the Ayodhya issue was not as heated up as it became later.

When we went inside, I saw 12 pillars of the mosque which were made from temple remains.

Q: How do you say that the pillars belong to some temple? And did you take pictures of the pillars?

A: No, I did not take pictures at that time. But other pictures are available now.

In almost all the temples of the 12th and 13 th centuries, you get 'Purna Kalasha' at the base. It is the structure of a 'ghada' (water pitcher) from which foliage would be coming out. It is the symbol of prosperity in Hinduism and is known as 'Asht-Mangala Chinha' - one of the eight auspicious symbols.

If you want to see it further, you can go to Quwwatul Islam mosque near Qutub Minar. This mosque was also made out of the spoils of 27 temples. There is evidence for this as well. There is a book called Taj-ul-Masir written by Hassan Nizami, a contemporary historian. He says that temples were destroyed and a mosque was constructed out of it.

There is also an inscription in front of the Quwwatul mosque which says that it was made out of the spoils of 27 temples. When you go inside, you can see a number of 'Purna Kalashas' and a number of gods and goddesses.

Similar things were there in Babri mosque also. There were no gods and goddesses but 'Asht-Mangala Chinhas' were there. So, on the basis of these, any archaeologist would say that these are temple remains.

Subsequently, BB Lal undertook excavations on the western side of the mosque. The pillar bases were also excavated. A number of terracotta sculptures were found. If it is a mosque, you will never get depiction of human beings or animals because it is 'haraam' (forbidden or proscribed) in Islam. This means there was a temple.

But these findings were not highlighted by BB Lal because our excavation purpose was not to establish whether there was a temple or not. We just wanted to see the cultural sequence of the place.

Q: So, were BB Lal's findings ever highlighted? Wasn't there a critique of how the study findings were presented?

A: Unfortunately, a group of Left historians led by Romila Thapar, DN Jha and RS Sharma among others went to the media around 1990 and falsely claimed that no temple remains were found in the excavation. They also said the report did not mention anything about the temple remains.

BB Lal was forced to defend. He made it clear that we got a number of temple remains but we did not make it an issue.

At that time, I was a deputy superintending archaeologist posted at Chennai. I came out with a press statement through a letter to the editor in a national newspaper.

I said that I was the only Muslim who had participated in that excavation and we got a number of temple remains.

I further said that this is as important for Hindus as Mecca and Medina are for Muslims. Therefore, Muslims should willingly hand it over to Hindus.

There was a senior IAS officer, I Mahadevan, a prominent archaeologist who had written a book on Indus script, came out with another statement. He said one group says there are temple remains and another group says there are no temple remains. Then why can't we undertake another excavation?

Q: So the second excavation was carried out under orders of the Allahabad High Court. What do you say about its findings?

A: The second excavation was carried out in 2003 as per the directions of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. By that time, the mosque had been destroyed. Before the excavation, a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey was conducted. It found that there were several structures below the ground. Many anomalies were reported. Anomalies meaning that you will be getting structures below the Babri Masjid.

The excavation was carried out under the supervision of archaeologists Hari Manjhi and BR Mani. Since this excavation was carried out as per the direction of the court, the report assumes the status of a Court Commissioner's report and it is fully authentic. The ASI excavation was neither for Nirmohi Akhara nor for Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) nor for Sunni Waqf Board. It is an impartial and scientific report by ASI.

During the first excavation, the controversial structure was having 12 temple pillars reused in the mosque. Excavation also exposed bases on which many pillars were standing.

But in the second excavation, more than 50 pillar bases in 17 rows were exposed. It means that the structure was imposing and large.

The structure discovered was a temple below the Babri Mosque and dated back to the 12th century AD.

They also got temple 'pranala'. We have to bathe the deity and the 'abhishek jal' flows through 'pranali'. The pranali is mostly 'makara pranali', having a crocodile face.

Crocodile is a symbol of river Ganga. In some of the temples, before reaching the 'garbha griha' (sanctum sanctorum), on the one side there would be a lady standing on crocodile and on the other side there would be a lady standing on tortoise.

This means that you are taking a symbolic bath in rivers Ganga, Yamuna and the underground Saraswati. After cleansing yourself of all the previous sins, you are going to the main God.

This 'makara pranali' was excavated. Had it been some other architectural member, one could have argued that it belonged to the part of a house. But this 'makara pranali' is neither seen in a residential area nor in a bazar area but it is exclusively the property of a temple.

Also, on top of the temple just below the 'kalasha', there is another architectural member known as 'amalka'. It was also excavated.

Below the 'amalka' there is the 'grivah' and also the 'shikhara' portion of the temple in North India. Many architectural members of the 'shikhara' was also excavated from there by the team.

Besides, 263 pieces of terracotta objects of various gods and goddesses, human figures and female figures were excavated from there.

The hired team by the Waqf Committee said the structure was another mosque before the Babri Mosque. While they call it a structure, ASI calls it a temple.

Had it been a mosque, how could you get these terracotta objects of various living beings? Depiction of any living being is prohibited in Islam.

Then how could you get sculptures of living beings had it been a mosque? So, it was not a mosque.

They also say that it might have been a Jain or a Buddhist temple if their argument that it was a pre-Babri mosque was rejected. But there are no remains of Jainism or Buddhism in that disputed area.

One of the directors of the excavation Hari Manjhi himself is a practising Buddhist and he has never come out with such a strange argument.

Apart from all these things, a 'Vishnu Hari Sheela Phalak' inscription was also found in two pieces from the site.

Of course, they were not part of the excavations but were found after the demolition of the mosque. But they form an important circumstantial evidence which clearly says the temple has been dedicated to that incarnation of Lord Vishnu who had killed Bali and a 10-headed person.

All this is evidence which we have in order to establish that there was a pre-existing Hindu temple and that too dedicated to Lord Vishnu at that place.

Q: What is the proof that this second ASI excavation in 2003 was impartial?

A: Firstly, the excavation was completely videographed. Apart from ASI officials there were court-appointed judicial members. There were the so-called experts of Babri mosque. Those who had filed the cases such as Zafaryab Jilani and their advocates were also overseeing the entire excavation process.

Besides, the excavation team comprised several Muslims who were senior archaeologists of the ASI.

They included Ghulam Syeddin Khwaja from ASI, who retired as director Arabic and Persian epigraphy at Nagpur. There also was Atiqur Rehman Siddiqui who retired as superintending archaeologist of Agra.

Zulfikar Ali, who presently is the superintending archaeologist of Chandigarh circle and AA Hashmi, who retired from Chanderi were there.

They not only carried the excavation but they also were co-authors of the report which was submitted to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court.

This is highly fool-proof.

Their conclusion was simple - that there was a pre-existing temple below the Babri Mosque and dedicated to Lord Vishnu.

Q: Was there no dissenting view?

A: No, there was no dissenting view. Nobody had resigned from the team either. Those who differed were the hired experts of the Waqf committee. But they tried to create some confusion.

But the Court Commissioner's report is crucial and final.

Read Also: Ram temple excavation report far from foolproof?

Q: Will these findings contribute in settling the issue by the Supreme Court?

A: Archaeological evidence is fully in favour of a Hindu temple. I only believe that the Supreme Court cannot come out with any other kind of judgment. Even if they do give another kind of judgment, though there is no chance at all, that would be a decision which would not be able to implement. I lived there for two months. I saw that throughout the day and night, people used to continuously visit there and worship. It has that kind of importance for the Hindus.

Q: Archaeological evidence is one aspect of the case. What are the other two which you wished to discuss?

A: There is ample literary evidence to prove that Hindus continued to worship at that place.

In Ain-e-Akbari Volume III, Abu Fazal says that Ayodhya was worshipped by Hindus in the month of Chaitra.

Then there was a traveller known as William Filch (1608-1611) who came to India during the time of Jehangir . In his travelogue, he says a lot of people assembled and worshipped at this place in Ayodhya.

In 1631, during the time of Jehangir and Shah Jahan, a Dutch geographer John Daeleat also speaks about the worship of the place by Hindus.

Thomas Herbert (1606-1682) mentions also speaks about the Hindu worship of the place.

Joseph Taissen Thaler, who wrote in 1766, also speaks about the erection of a cradle at the place. It was for the first time, he said that the temple was destroyed either by Babur or Aurangzeb.

Q: What is the third aspect of the Ayodhya issue?

A: The third and last aspect is the social issue. Ram Temple at Ayodhya is as important for Hindus as Mecca and Medina are for Muslims.

For Muslims, it is neither associated with Prophet Mohammed nor with any of his prominent companions in Islam nor with any Auliya like Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti of Ajmer, Nizamuddin Auliya of Delhi or Salim Chisti of Fatehpur Sikri or any Islamic divine personality.

Therefore, Muslims should have willingly handed it over to Hindus.

For that, Hindus should also come forward to construct a grand mosque for Muslims, somewhere in Lucknow or wherever they are in the majority.

In Ayodhya area, the Muslim population is sporadic. Therefore, there is no point in arguing for a mosque in that area.

If Muslims had shown willingness on their part, many of the problems that they facing might have been automatically solved. That would have generated goodwill among Hindus also.

Muslims were ready for this. But these Marxist historians led by Irfan Habib created the problem. It is they who told the Muslim community that they have excavated the place and they did not get anything by which they could say that they there was a temple beneath the mosque.

And none of these people except one or two were archaeologists.They were all simple historians. They were not technically qualified to be archaeologists. They had no excavation experience also. They came out in the open with their own ignorance and Muslims were taken for a ride by those people.

Muslims were in a cleft stick by these people.

Now at least they (Muslims) should show the political maturity to come out of the trap of the Marxist historians. Even now the time has not elapsed. Before the Supreme Court gives its judgment, Muslims should hand over the place to Hindus and create an example. That is my humble request to them.

Q: So the second excavation was carried out under orders of the Allahabad High Court. What do you say about its findings?

A: The second excavation was carried out in 2003 as per the directions of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. By that time, the mosque had been destroyed. Before the excavation, a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey was conducted. It found that there were several structures below the ground. Many anomalies were reported. Anomalies meaning that you will be getting structures below the Babri Masjid.

The excavation was carried out under the supervision of archaeologists Hari Manjhi and BR Mani. Since this excavation was carried out as per the direction of the court, the report assumes the status of a Court Commissioner's report and it is fully authentic. The ASI excavation was neither for Nirmohi Akhara nor for Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) nor for Sunni Waqf Board. It is an impartial and scientific report by ASI.

Feeling very curious. Where to find this Court Commissioner's report of ASI ???? Have not seen Allahabad High court judgement, was it available at public domain that time ? or the full/or part of report was strictly confidential and available only to me_lards ???

In all celebrity noise there are some key call outs which should not be missed

- The way Judiciary, State and Central Gov and agencies collaborated to ensure there is no Law and order problem is really amazing and unprecedented - Amit S as HM has iron hand on internal security; not a single incident reported from anywhere and we hope that to continue - Desi janta over the years has matured and has learned to look bigger picture and practice peace and harmony - No Protest or Large scale celebrations - All in all signs of a progressive nation

Suraj wrote:The Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock isn't built near the ruins of the Jewish Second Temple - it's built upon it. The Western Wall (previously known as the Wailing Wall) is the wall of the Temple Mount structure upon which the temple existed, and where the Al Aqsa Mosque was built. The reason it used to be called the wailing wall is that orthodox Jews still go cry and pray at it lamenting its destruction and inability to replace it, but they don't like the pejorative sense of the term wailing, so it got renamed as western wall.

The Israelis would gladly be rid of the Al Aqsa Mosque so that their Third Temple can be built where the second one stood - except the site has been usurped by a mosque now.

There is some dispute about this. According to Muslim sources it was never in use for worship but more of a waste dump. Specific restrictions were imposed by the caliph Umar to not build on anything used by the Jews. The place itself was given by the patriarch of Jerusalem.

This situation is nothing like the RJB situation IMHO. The historical case is so undisputed that even a secular court couldn't deny the Hindus legitimate claim. I doubt the Israelis can come up with such a clear case since the from what I understand Muslims have enough records to show that the Jews themselves offered the space for masjid Al aqsa.

The Israeli model which is a fave amongst many Indians imho is hardly a good model to follow. They have no peace even after so many years and viciously subjugating the Palestinians. India's hasa much better and mature policy.

nits wrote:In all celebrity noise there are some key call outs which should not be missed

- The way Judiciary, State and Central Gov and agencies collaborated to ensure there is no Law and order problem is really amazing and unprecedented - Amit S as HM has iron hand on internal security; not a single incident reported from anywhere and we hope that to continue - Desi janta over the years has matured and has learned to look bigger picture and practice peace and harmony - No Protest or Large scale celebrations - All in all signs of a progressive nation

I have a slightly different take.

- After the massive Modi Tsunami 2.0, peacefuls are somewhat resigned to their faith along with their usual supporters.- 370 added additional proof that Modi-Shah don't give a crap about peacefuls and have firmly punctured the blusters of the idiots.- Large scale celebrations were muted also because everyone knew the dangers of situation and unprecedented government control over all channels. Plus a lot of Sanatanis had kind of accepted even the HC order so this was icing on top.

Cain Marko wrote:The Israeli model which is a fave amongst many Indians imho is hardly a good model to follow. They have no peace even after so many years and viciously subjugating the Palestinians. India's hasa much better and mature policy.

They have far better situation than they would have without the constant reprisals. The Palestinians are very clear about killing all Jews once (if) they take over. Its only Israel kipping them in their place is what stops them.India doesnt have as radical a populace as that. Or so I hope at least.But its a valid point that Israeli model probably cant be replicated anyway in a country as big as India.

Mollick.R wrote:Feeling very curious. Where to find this Court Commissioner's report of ASI ???? Have not seen Allahabad High court judgement, was it available at public domain that time ? or the full/or part of report was strictly confidential and available only to me_lards ???

I am also very interested in the report. Various reports say the ASI found remains of a temple while other reports say ASI found remains of some structure, not necessarily a temple. The report should be published to end this controversy.

What is intriguing about the judgement is "both sides have claims, so we will give the site to one party and give another site to the other party". What if the judgement had the parties reversed?

It is more of a logical solution than a strictly legal verdict. Maybe this is the best course of action and we can all move on.

Mollick.R wrote:Feeling very curious. Where to find this Court Commissioner's report of ASI ???? Have not seen Allahabad High court judgement, was it available at public domain that time ? or the full/or part of report was strictly confidential and available only to me_lards ???

I am also very interested in the report. Various reports say the ASI found remains of a temple while other reports say ASI found remains of some structure, not necessarily a temple. The report should be published to end this controversy.

What is intriguing about the judgement is "both sides have claims, so we will give the site to one party and give another site to the other party". What if the judgement had the parties reversed?

It is more of a logical solution than a strictly legal verdict. Maybe this is the best course of action and we can all move on.

The Allahabad HC verdict is online. Google it.

"Both sides have claim" - Both sides had partial possession of the property i.e. offered prayers at the Inner courtyard.

"Balance of probabilities" or some such phrase

1) Both claimed the Inner courtyard and offered prayers. 2) Hindus had exclusive possession of the outer courtyard. 3) Hindus "documented" claim on that site is the longest.

There was no question of splitting the property, infact the SC rapped the HC for doing that because it was never the prayer of either parties to the title suit. So on "balance of probabilities" the RJB site was allocated to the Hindus.

BUT the other side i.e. the Muslims did have valid claim on the property because of possession. The court used its extraordinary power under section 142 to grant the Muslims a separate 5 acre plot in Ayodhya to build their Mosque to give them relief as well as relief for forceful dispossession in 1949 and illegal demolition of the structure in 1992 (?).

nits wrote:Owasi is saying - what would have been judgement if Mosque would have been there; would SC ask it to be removed and then allocate land to Hindus

IF it is a property suit, which it is, the SC would have ruled as it has now and allowed the winner the right to do as it pleased with the structure on the property. The outcome would have been the same.

Is the RJB verdict a victory for the Modi/BJP/RSS? Can they claim credit or should the credit go to the courts, Ram Lalla and his lawyers?

This is going to be provocative but bear with me. One needs to discuss tough questions. Someone on twitter was farting that BJP has "managed" this judgement. I thoroughly disagree with that POV. BUT there are question that do arise ..

1. Would it have allowed the introduction of reference and virtual endorsement of the "Protection of places act, 1961" (???) that virtually bars the Hindutva warriors from reclaiming any other temple?

2. Or, Has the BJP/RSS played it smart and especially got that into the judgement to wash its hand off the rest of the Hindutva temple reclamation project by pointing to the SC judgement?

I think Modi/BJP/RSS would never contemplate point #2, Hence, I don't believe the judgement was "managed" but the SC reached its decision on merits of the case and the reference while unfortunate will have to be undone by Modi/BJP legislatively.

Cain Marko wrote:There is some dispute about this. According to Muslim sources it was never in use for worship but more of a waste dump. Specific restrictions were imposed by the caliph Umar to not build on anything used by the Jews. The place itself was given by the patriarch of Jerusalem.

It could not be used because people were living there prior to its capture by Israel in 1967.

The practice of demolishing a religious structure and building another over it isn't something rare. It is a standard technique of imperial and religious conquest. The Emperor Charlemagne cut down the sacred trees and grottos of Saxon forest tribes and used the lumber to build churches. Several Catholic churches in South America are built using the stone blocks of the Incan temples that stood on the site before being destroyed by the Spanish conquistadores. In Rome, churches like Santa Prisca were built over temples to Mithra. The Norse temple at Uppsala in Sweden, centre of that religion, isn't there anymore. A church sits over the site. It is still a place of prayer but the worshippers pray to another god. The previous faith has been extinguished. That was the intent.

vimal wrote:Babri Masjid was called as Masjid-e-Janamsthan till early 20th century. After that the Marxists and JIhadis renamed it to Babri masjid hide it's origin.

What does the "1858 FIR" posted above actually say? (can't read..) The caption beside the FIR says "Babri Masjid". Is the document done by Al Fotoshopi bin JNU FIRs Pvt Ltd? Or only the caption is "modern"?

It is well established that earlier visitors from around the world all referred to the place as ArrJayBee. The destruction of the temple and building a triumphalist bubble, with absolutely no faith reasons, over the place using stones stolen from the ruins of the temple, are all well-established procedure of the Conquering Herrows of One Community. Ask ppl from Syrian Coptic Church; ask Jewish people. Ask ppl in Spain. Iran. Iraq.

In most faiths it would be sacrilege to use stones from a shrine of another faith anywhere in the construction of one's own shrine. In the history of one faith it is exactly the opposite, the urge to be InUrFace/ OnUrChest is apparently built-in. This is at the root of most of India's long-burning irritants. ........

Ulanbatoriji,I must disagree Sirji. The pigs are not original in their thoughts, others have done it before them. See for example:Templo MayorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Templo Mayor (Spanish for "[the] Greater Temple") was the main temple of the Mexica peoples in their capital city of Tenochtitlan, which is now Mexico City. Its architectural style belongs to the late Postclassic period of Mesoamerica. The temple was called the Huēyi Teōcalli [we:ˈi teoːˈkali][1] in the Nahuatl language. It was dedicated simultaneously to Huitzilopochtli, god of war, and Tlaloc, god of rain and agriculture, each of which had a shrine at the top of the pyramid with separate staircases. The spire in the center of the adjacent image was devoted to Quetzalcoatl in his form as the wind god, Ehecatl.[2] The Great Temple devoted to Huitzilopochtli and Tlaloc, measuring approximately 100 by 80 m (328 by 262 ft) at its base, dominated the Sacred Precinct.[3] Construction of the first temple began sometime after 1325, and it was rebuilt six times. The temple was destroyed by the Spanish in 1521 to make way for the new cathedral.[4]______________________________________________________________________________It is common for the victor to destroy the civilization of the vanquished and then claim that the vanquished needed to be made civilized as they were in a savage state. As far as I remember this was not an isolated case in South America.Gautam

>>The practice of demolishing a religious structure and building another over it isn't something rare.

Indeed. The exception is when that does not happen.

Even in the case of the recently burned down church of Notre Dame in Paris while we, along with the world, mourned at the fiery collapse of the "monumentally beautiful edifice, let us also remember that underneath it was a temple to many gods, including Jupiter, Mercury, Castor and Pollux, and Vulcan, the old Roman god of fire."

Ankit Desai wrote:No Scope for Kashi and Mathura: In Ayodhya Verdict, SC Stresses on ‘Non-Retrogression' to Bar More Disputes

This rule AFAIK is only applicable when cases comes to court. Can't the legislature take any steps to recoup Kashi & Mathura?

It is quite possible if there is a political will to do it. For example, the US SC allowed slavery in a democratic country for a long time. The opinion of a court changes with time. Laws also change with time. With time things will change. But first we have to take back POK and split the Pak land.GautamPS I forgot to say Modi hai to mumkin hai!

U miss the point. They may have built over the site but did they use the same stones, not even broken up? That is what is haraam in other religions. Note that the Al Aqsa was occupied by the Crusaders, who installed pakistans inside (and granaries.. but let's not go there). See the Wikipedia writeup on Al Aqsa. The Crusaders did not just re-use the stones and call it Church of Our Lady of Mercy and Respect For Other Religions. The AA was intact enough to be refurbished after the Crusaders were halaaed.

Sirji the building materials were used too in Mexico City. There are many such examples in South America. I will search them out for you, just need some time. Also, read about how Poland was converted to Christianity. As a natter of fact even the Vatican was built over a Mithra temple. Those days they just redecorated the temple and made it a church. The foundation remained the same and the costs were minimal.Gautam